SCAM Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN-6]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 20, 2026
Bottom line
The bill significantly broadens the government's ability to retroactively revoke the citizenship of naturalized individuals based on certain post-naturalization conduct, potentially creating a two-tiered system of citizenship.
What it actually does
This bill expands the grounds for civil denaturalization proceedings, allowing for the retroactive revocation of U.S. citizenship for naturalized individuals who, within 10 years of naturalization, associate with a foreign terrorist organization, commit fraud against a governmental program exceeding $10,000, or commit an aggravated felony or espionage offense. It establishes that such actions serve as prima facie evidence that the individual lacked good moral character and attachment to the Constitution at the time of naturalization, making them subject to expedited removal.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill protects national security and upholds the integrity of the naturalization process by ensuring that only individuals truly committed to U.S. values retain citizenship. They contend that those who commit serious crimes, engage in significant fraud, or affiliate with terrorist organizations demonstrate a fundamental lack of good moral character that existed at the time of their naturalization, even if not discovered until later.
Opponents contend
Critics would likely argue that the bill creates a two-tiered citizenship system, where naturalized citizens face a higher standard and greater risk of losing their citizenship than birthright citizens. They may raise concerns about due process, the retroactive application of denaturalization, and the potential for politically motivated proceedings, arguing that it undermines the stability and finality of citizenship.
The bill is relatively short and focused, allowing a diligent reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Legislative Findings and Sense of Congress
This section outlines Congress's rationale for the bill, asserting that naturalized citizens have sacred duties and that those who commit fraud, affiliate with terrorist organizations, or commit aggravated felonies demonstrate a lack of good moral character and attachment to the Constitution at the time of their naturalization. It also expresses a specific interpretation of Supreme Court precedent regarding denaturalization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings accurately reflect the importance of citizenship and the need to ensure that those who betray its duties face consequences, reinforcing the integrity of the naturalization process.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that these findings prejudge the character of naturalized citizens and could be used to justify overly broad or punitive measures, potentially undermining the principle of equal citizenship.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to uphold the integrity of citizenship against concerns about creating a potentially unequal or insecure status for naturalized citizens.
Section 4, amending 8 U.S.C. 1451 by inserting subsection (d)
Denaturalization for Foreign Terrorist Organization Affiliation
This provision allows for the retroactive denaturalization of a person if, within 10 years of becoming a U.S. citizen, they associate with, conspire with, aid, or abet any designated foreign terrorist organization. Such actions are considered sufficient evidence that the person lacked good moral character and attachment to the Constitution at the time of naturalization, leading to the revocation of their citizenship.
Section 4, amending 8 U.S.C. 1451 by inserting subsection (e)
Denaturalization for Fraud Against Government Programs
This provision enables retroactive denaturalization if a naturalized citizen is convicted of, or admits to, fraud against federal, state, local, or tribal governments involving at least $10,000, and the acts occurred within 10 years of naturalization. This is deemed sufficient evidence of lacking good moral character at the time of naturalization, leading to the revocation of their citizenship.
Section 4, amending 8 U.S.C. 1451 by inserting subsection (f)
Denaturalization for Aggravated Felonies or Espionage Offenses
This provision allows for retroactive denaturalization if a naturalized citizen is convicted of, or admits to, an aggravated felony or specific espionage offenses (as defined in federal law), and the acts occurred within 10 years of naturalization. This is considered sufficient evidence of lacking good moral character and attachment to the Constitution at the time of naturalization, leading to the revocation of their citizenship.
Section 4, amending 8 U.S.C. 1451 by inserting subsection (h)
Retroactive Effect and Removability
This subsection clarifies that any denaturalization under this Act is effective retroactively to the original date the citizenship was granted, treating the certificate as void from its issuance. Furthermore, any person denaturalized under this section becomes removable via expedited proceedings, regardless of their immigration status after denaturalization or the time elapsed since naturalization.
If the 10-year look-back period for denaturalization grounds is found unconstitutional by a final judicial decision, this provision automatically reduces it to a 5-year period, consistent with the published judicial opinion in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 27 (1913).
Section 4(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure a bill's core intent survives potential legal challenges by providing an alternative, judicially-tested standard. It's a proactive legal maneuver to preemptively address constitutional concerns.
Case for: Proponents would argue it demonstrates legislative foresight and a commitment to the bill's objectives, ensuring that the expanded denaturalization grounds remain enforceable even if specific timeframes are challenged.
Case against: Critics might see it as an admission of potential constitutional weakness in the primary 10-year provision, or an attempt to circumvent judicial review by pre-emptively setting a fallback that might still face challenges.
Estimated impact: Ensures the bill's denaturalization provisions would likely remain in effect, albeit with a shorter look-back period, if the 10-year period is struck down, thereby preserving the core policy intent.